alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 570.53 Applicability.

This part does not in itself impose requirements on any person. It is intended to be implemented by States through the highway safety program standards issued under the Highway Safety Act (23 U.S.C. 402) with respect to inspection of motor vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds, except mobile structure trailers.

[39 FR 28980, Aug. 13, 1974]
Exhibit 4

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Utah Medical Products, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Greg A.
LeClaire, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


  /s/ Greg A. LeClaire
----------------------
Greg A. LeClaire
May 10, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1210-AB32-2-1423.html[7/26/2015 4:56:42 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 10, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jwb-y0lj

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1919

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Kurt Leger

Address:

2219 Gary Court

Marshalltown, IA, 501585

General Comment

Ive spent my whole life working towards my retirement. 

A government bureaucrat should not get in the way of that.

Please do not enact this Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) Proposed Rule proposed rule.

Stop the federal government DOL from restricting your retirement freedoms.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0845.html[7/21/2015 4:07:55 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-kg3w

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0845

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Sheila Harrison

Address:

300 Fairoaks Drive

Bryant, AR, 72022

Email: Sharrison@rentalconcepts.org

General Comment

I can plan my own retirement! Leave my 401k alone. We do not need more government regulations!
Army divers train for salvage ops in Kuwait
 By By Staff Sgt. Jared Crain, U.S. Army Central
  **CAMP ARIFJAN, Kuwait (Oct. 28, 2015)** **—** Divers from the 74th Engineer Dive Detachment 
from Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va., conducted their annual salvage
 diver training in the waters of Kuwait Naval Base, Oct. 22. 
The two-week training exercise gave second-class divers the opportunity 
to progress to salvage divers as they trained individually and as a team
 in evaluated events.  	
The multi-phase underwater salvage training exercise focused on 
dewatering, rigging, patching and lift bag operations using scuba and 
surface-supplied air diving. 
“This training exercise is important for the divers. They can advance to
 the next level, salvage divers, and become more competent and efficient
 in their mission essential tasks,” said 1st Sgt. Christopher Green, 
master diving supervisor with the 74th EDD. 
Green, went on to explain, that one of the main missions for the 
detachment is for them to enhance the protection of the force in the 
U.S. Army Central theater, by conducting security swims in ports to 
ensure there are no hazards in the waterways, making it safe for vessels
 to enter. 
“We continually work with and support a variety of government and 
military agencies, such as the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard,” Green added.
“The detachment currently has eight second-class divers who are trying 
to become salvage divers,” said Green. “The more they’re underwater and 
the more situations they encounter while underwater will make them a 
better salvage divers.”
“Being underwater is like being on the moon but with a little resistance,” said
Spc. Eoin Audet, one of the 74th EDD divers working to become a salvage diver.
Army dive detachments are small, elite units that train together and are used to working in teams.
“We are very small group; we put a lot of trust in one another. This 
allows us to build a tighter bond than most units,” said Green. 
“I ’m really comfortable with everyone on my team, were like one big 
family,” said Audet. “When it comes down to the job, everyone is 
completely professional, no one is looking out for his or herself, they 
are looking out for everybody on the team.”
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0543.html[7/20/2015 8:29:15 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-nny3

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0543

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Ray Cron

Address:

2909 Lakeland drive

Urbandale, IA, 50322

Email: rcron@willisautocampus.com

Phone: 515-979-9417

General Comment

I will handle my own retirement thank you.
1st quarter 2024(p)/0.8/1.8/0.2/0.2/0.4/0.3/0.6
4th quarter 2023/0.7/1.9/0.3/0.2/0.5/0.2/0.6
3rd quarter 2023/0.7/2.0/0.2/0.1/0.2/0.2/0.5
2nd quarter 2023/0.7/1.9/0.2/0.1/0.3/0.3/0.7
1st quarter 2023/0.7/1.8/0.2/0.2/0.3/0.2/0.8
§ 378.2 Definitions. ( a ) *Carrier* means a motor carrier or household goods freight forwarder subject to 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part B.
( b ) *Overcharge* means an overcharge as defined in 49 U.S.C. 14704(b). It also includes duplicate payments as defined in paragraph (c) of this section and overcollections as defined in paragraph (d) of this section when a dispute exists between the parties concerning such charges.
( c ) *Duplicate payment* means two or more payments for transporting the same shipment. Where one or more payment is not in the exact amount of the applicable tariff rates and charges, refunds shall be made on the basis of the excess amount over the applicable tariff rates and charges.
( d ) *Overcollection* means the receipt by a household goods carrier of a payment in excess of the transportation and/or accessorial charges applicable to a particular shipment of household goods, as defined in part 375 of this chapter, under tariffs lawfully on file with the Surface Transportation Board.
( e ) *Unidentified payment* means a payment which a carrier has received but which the carrier is unable to match with its open accounts receivable or otherwise identify as being due for the performance of transportation services.
( f ) *Claimant* means any shipper or receiver, or its authorized agent, filing a request with a carrier for the refund of an overcharge, duplicate payment, or overcollection.
[43 FR 41040, Sept. 14, 1978, as amended at 44 FR 66832, Nov. 21, 1979; 51 FR 34989, Oct. 1, 1986; 51 FR 44297, Dec. 9, 1986; 62 FR 15424, Apr. 1, 1997; 81 FR 68346, Oct. 4, 2016; 88 FR 80180, Nov. 17, 2023]
###### Editorial Note on Part 387

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 387 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 387.419T Electronic filing of surety bonds, certificates of insurance and cancellations.

Insurers may, at their option and in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth at § 387.323T, file certificates of insurance, surety bonds, and other securities and agreements electronically.

[82 FR 5310, Jan. 17, 2017]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         400,983
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  260,340
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               815,871
<PP&E>                                         206,990
<DEPRECIATION>                                 164,419
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 978,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          273,091
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       871,286
<OTHER-SE>                                   (215,835)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   978,542
<SALES>                                      1,702,862
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,704,961
<CGS>                                          832,748
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  695,716
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,838
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                170,659
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,482
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            138,177
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   138,177
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
-----Original Message----- 

From: indulgentmother@comcast.net [mailto:indulgentmother@comcast.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:53 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Teresa Anderson 

2120 W Schiller St 

Chicago, IL 60622
From: Steven Smith [mailto:steven.earlson@gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 8:25 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32 Comments

I am a retiree with most of my money in my IRA. I have been trading options there for several years 

now, and consider options to be a significant asset to increasing my returns. Doing away with my ability 

to trade options in my IRA would hurt my returns, and not provide more safety to preserving my nest 

egg. I sell covered calls and sell cash-secured puts. For covered calls, this allows me to sell a call at a 

price at or higher than I would have sold the security at, while earning a premium. For cash-secured 

puts, it allows me to pick the price I want to pay for a stock, and collect a premium whether the stock 

reaches the strike price or not. Using these instruments does not increase risk to my portfolio at all, and 

actually increases my returns. Why would you do away with my ability to use these in an IRA? Please 

reconsider any proposal to do away with the ability to trade options in an IRA, at least at the low risk tier 

that I describe above. Thank you

Steven Smith

5 Prospector Lane

Scarborough, ME 04074 

(207) 730-7138
EXHIBIT 10(A)(2)

SERVOTRONICS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


July 3, 2003

Dr. Nicholas D. Trbovich
1110 Maple Street
Elma, NY 14059

Dear Dr. Trbovich:

You  and  Servotronics,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  are  parties  to an  employment
agreement, as amended and restated on August 8, 1986 and as subsequently amended
as of October 1, 1986,  October 1, 1987, July 20, 1988, October 1, 1988, October
1, 1989, May 1, 1990, May 1, 1991, May 1, 1992, May 1, 1993, March 28, 1994, May
1, 1994,  May 1, 1995,  May 1, 1996,  May 1, 1997,  March 9, 1998,  May 1, 1998,
October 6, 1998,  April 28, 1999, May 1, 1999, May 1, 2000, May 1, 2001, July 3,
2001, May 1, 2002, July 3, 2002 and May 1, 2003 (the  "Agreement"),  pursuant to
which you are employed by the Company.

This  will  confirm  your  agreement  and  that of the  Company  (pursuant  to a
resolution  of the Board of Directors  passed at a meeting held on July 3, 2003)
to amend Paragraph 1 of the Agreement to delete  "September 30, 2007" and insert
in its place "September 30, 2008".

Except as specifically provided herein, all of the other terms and conditions of
the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

If the  foregoing  meets with your  approval and you are willing to become bound
hereby,  will you please sign and return to the undersigned the enclosed copy of
this letter.

Very truly yours,


SERVOTRONICS, INC.


/S/ Lee D. Burns
----------------------------

Lee D. Burns,
Treasurer/Secretary


ACCEPTED AND AGREED


/S/ Dr. Nicholas D. Trbovich
----------------------------
Dr. Nicholas D. Trbovich
Exhibit 32

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of APPLIED SPECTRUM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005, (the
"Report"), I, Mark R. Littell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1)    The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.

Date: December 28, 2005                By: /s/ Mark R. Littell
                                          -------------------------
                                          Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE>
                                                                                          EXHIBIT 11.1

                                   VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                (Thousands of Dollars, Except Per Share Amounts)



<CAPTION>
                                                                    Year Ending December 31,
                                                               1996            1995             1994      
<S>                                                         <C>             <C>              <C>
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
 ASSUMING NO DILUTION:
   Net income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      $   72,701      $   59,838       $   26,882 
   Less:  Preferred stock dividend requirements. . . .         (11,327)        (11,818)          (9,490)
   Net income applicable to common stock . . . . . . .      $   61,374      $   48,020       $   17,392 

   Weighted average number of shares of common
     stock outstanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      43,926,026      43,651,914       43,369,836 

   Earnings per share assuming no dilution . . . . . .      $     1.40      $     1.10       $      .40 

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
 ASSUMING FULL DILUTION:
     Net income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      $   72,701      $   59,838       $   26,882 
     Less:  Preferred stock dividend requirements. . .         (11,327)        (11,818)          (9,490)
     Add:  Reduction of preferred stock dividends
       applicable to the assumed conversion of 
       Convertible Preferred Stock . . . . . . . . . .          10,781          10,781            8,325 
     Net income applicable to common stock
       assuming full dilution. . . . . . . . . . . . .      $   72,155      $   58,801       $   25,717 

     Weighted average number of shares of common
       stock outstanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      43,926,026      43,651,914       43,369,836 
     Weighted average common stock equivalents
       applicable to stock options . . . . . . . . . .         632,967         413,809           56,926 
     Weighted average shares issuable upon 
       conversion of Convertible Preferred Stock . . .       6,381,798       6,381,798        4,948,079 

     Weighted average shares used for computation. . .      50,940,791      50,447,521       48,374,841 

     Earnings per share assuming full dilution . . . .      $     1.42<F1>  $     1.17<F1>   $      .53<F1>

                        
<FN>
<F1> This calculation is submitted in accordance with paragraph 601(b)(11) of Regulation S-K although 
      it is contrary to APB Opinion No. 15 because it produces an antidilutive result.
</TABLE>
#### Ex Parte William Snyder.

No. 1643.

Decided March 26, 1898.

Habeas Corpus—Relator Must Be in Custody Pending Appeal.

Unless the record on appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding shows affirmatively that the relator is in custody in jail, the appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal from the County Court of Johnson. Tried below before Hon. F. E. Adams, County Judge.

Appeal from a judgment, in a habeas corpus proceeding, remanding relator to custody.

The opinion states the case.

*121
      *W. W. Walling*and *Mann*Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State,

moved to dismiss the appeal because the record did not show that relator was in custody.

[No brief for relator.]

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Belabor was convicted in the city court of Cleburne, under an ordinance of that city, for being drunk in a public place. He applied for and obtained a writ of habeas corpus from the county judge of Johnson County, who, upon the hearing of said writ, remanded him to custody, and this appeal is prosecuted from said order.

Motion is made by the Assistant Attorney-General to dismiss the appeal because the record does not show the relator to be in custody. Before a party can resort to the writ of habeas corpus, he must be confined in jail or restrained of his liberty, and, where he has been remanded upon the hearing of the writ to the custody of the officer, the fact that he is in confinement must affirmatively appear of record in this court. This is not shown by this record, and we have in addition some evidence in the form of an affidavit that said relator is at large. It has been called to our attention several times recently on appeal, in eases of this character, that the parties were not confined in jail pending their appeal. This is a fraud, or an attempted fraud, upon the jurisdiction of this court, and may call for stringent measures or action on our part. We do not understand how the writ of habeas corpus can be resorted to where the party is not restrained of his liberty, and, if restrained in the first instance, why officers permit such parties to go at large in disobedience to the orders of the remanding court. Nor do we understand why it is that attorneys will prosecute appeals from judgments of this character when their clients are not confined in jail or restrained of their liberty. The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*
§ 372.209 Lake Charles, LA. The zone adjacent to, and commercially a part of Lake Charles, La., within which transportation by motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce, not under common control, management, or arrangement for a continuous carriage or shipment to or from a point beyond such zone, is partially exempt from regulation under 49 U.S.C. 13506(b)(1) includes and is comprised of all points as follows: ( a ) The municipality of Lake Charles, La., itself;
( b ) All points within a line drawn 6 miles beyond the municipal limits of Lake Charles;
( c ) Those points in Calcasieu Parish, La., which are not within the area described in paragraph (b) of this section; and which are east of Louisiana Highway 27 (western section);
( d ) All of any municipality any part of which is within the limits of the combined areas defined in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, and
( e ) All of any municipality wholly surrounded, or so surrounded except for a water boundary, by the municipality of Lake Charles or by any other municipality included under the terms of paragraph (d) of this section.
[41 FR 56653, Dec. 29, 1976, as amended at 62 FR 15422, Apr. 1, 1997]